[mpris] [ANN] MPRIS v2.0

[Mirsal Ennaime]

On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Lennart Poettering
<lennart at poettering.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 13.08.10 11:21, Ian Monroe (ian at monroe.nu) wrote:
>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Alex Merry <kde at randomguy3.me.uk> wrote:
>> >  On 13/08/10 14:26, Alex Merry wrote:
>> >>
>> >>  On 12/08/10 04:07, Mirsal Ennaime wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> I would like to announce the release of the second major version of
>> >>> the Media Player Remote Interfacing Specification.
>> >>
>> >> Having actually read the final version of the spec:
>> >
>> > Oh, and I'd like to say for the record (and for future ventures into writing
>> > interoperability specifications) that the way I think this should have gone
>> > down is that we released a second RC, refused to accept any further major
>> > changes, and the Ubuntu guys with their deadlines should have implemented
>> > the RC version (on the basis that there wouldn't be significant changes
>> > before the final version).
>>
>> That sounds rather reasonable. I say we go ahead and rebrand the 2.0
>> spec a 2.0rc1 since with the typos that's what it is anyways.
>
> Folks, don't take this all to serious. Personally I believe that this
> should be a "living" spec anyway, i.e. you shouldn't be afraid of
> continously making minor additions, typo fixes, without making too big a
> fuss about it. Publish a git repo and then everybody can follow your
> changes anyway. And only announce the big changes.
>
> This is not a super-official standardizing forum. This is just a an
> agreement between a number of free software folks. There's really no
> need to come up with a bureaucratic process with RC cycles and whatever
> for this, really.

Yes.
Although rushing the release was a mistake, I still think that the
spec can be amended with minor fixes.

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Alex Merry <kde at randomguy3.me.uk> wrote:
> * There is no property to say whether clients can expect OpenUri to work

Clients should consider using OpenUri only if the SupportedMimeTypes
and SupportedUriSchemes properties of the root interface are not
empty. I don't think it makes sense not to have OpenUri if AddTrack is
implemented.

> * We shouldn't be referencing the metadata "suggestions page" for 1.0, especially since times are now in usec, not msec.
> * What happened to the plan to use xesam properties for the metadata keys?

I'll update the wiki page with the mpris2 metadata guidelines asap !
-- 
Mirsal